DI’s opinion regarding this mysterious “company” is essentially to have as little as possible to do with them in the absence of clarification of who they are and what they are doing. We agreed on a strategy of persisting in attempting to obtain such information. There seems no reasonable grounds (in the absence of any other factors we can consider) to justify the non-provision of basic information about themselves and their intentions. Frankly, all this cloak and dagger activity seems such a ridiculous carry-on and waste of time. They show a lack of respect for professional dealings and boundaries – they can’t expect DI to be some kind of messenger service when it suits them. That’s not part of DI’s professional or charitable brief regarding cults. All they could reasonably expect is that DI would pass on their contact details and a basic description of what they are about to shareholders who had been in contact with DI, that it be left entirely to the shareholders as to whether they have any contact or dealings with them, and that DI would have no involvement beyond this as it has no brief to be involved in shareholders’ decisions or this company’s dealings with them.
DI has back in August provided under a general duty of care an outline of the shareholders’ rights as set out by Judge Bannister. Beyond that, it is up to the shareholders. It is clear that it is a hiding to nothing to try to communicate rationally with certain of the shareholders as they are highly fearful, often traumatised and having been financially drained by Quinn et al, very easily turn on DI as an outlet for their frustrations.
In the case of this company, although they state that they are performing a genuine legal function, we are extremely cautious in any dealings with them in case it ends up being twisted to use against DI. This is because of the extraordinary lengths to which Quinn and Co are prepared to go to try to trap DI in some kind of alleged conspiracy, supposedly against the oil company but also for his own advantage – the amount of money spent on “investigative security” testifies to the lengths he will go in his hate-fuelled vendetta against DI. Even if, as it currently being said, this company is a real legal or accounting firm, they could be very predatory towards the shareholders or there may be other connections with them that are not obvious and there seems to be no benefit or upside to DI‘s involvement with them as things currently stand and considering how much work has been done to try to get clarification from them.
On January 16 last in the late afternoon an email appeared in our inbox requesting contacts to the B shareholders.
Correspondence launched by someone calling themselves Eilleen Murphy acting on behalf of Don Campbell from a company unknown.
On 16/01/2013 16:56, Eilleen Murphy wrote:
We have been following your blog with great interest and we would be very keen to speak to some of the B Class shareholders who might want to take matters further.
Would it be possible for you to help us establish contact with any of them or with Miss Shelia McCaffrey?
I understand there are quite a few disgruntled B Class Shareholders and I believe we could help them.
I look forward to your reply.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Dialogue Ireland wrote:
Great to hear from you!
May I suggest you contact me on the numbers below.
As we have no connection to the oil issue we have no real contact with the people
concerned. However, we do have contact with Ex Quinn people who are also shareholders.
I would also not convey this information by email.
MIKE GARDE MA
On 16/01/2013 17:27, Eilleen Murphy wrote:
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
Can I give you a ring around 9pm this evening on your mobile?
I have to pop out for tea this evening but will be free later.
From: Dialogue Ireland
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:52:32 +0000
To: Eilleen Murphy<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: B Class Shareholders
You can on mobile, land line or Skype which ever is best for you
On 16/01/2013 17:53, email@example.com wrote:
No problem, will give you a call later.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
I received a call that same evening but it was not Eilleen but a Don Campbell who called. He claimed to have been at the Mount Herbert Hotel in Ballsbridge at the invitation of Susan Morrice to participate in an oil seminar. He claimed that when he arrived Susan Morrice was trying to sell Educo courses. He said he represented a major fund which had a major litigation department who wished to contact the B shareholders. They were very familiar with the Caribbean area.
(Note phoned the Mount Herbert Hotel who have no record of a meeting hosted by Susan Morrice, INE, BNE or Educo?)
Don informed me he had offices in London and Dublin. He told me he was going to London the following day and would phone me on his arrival there to discuss further. He would come to Dublin to meet me the following week.
This text was sent at 23.23 pm Wed, 16 Jan 2013
Good to hear you made contact with xxxxxxx. Look forward to advising you on the cult dimension. Talk soon. Mike
Sent from my Windows Phone
You can see that the assumption was this was just the beginning of the communication.
This is the email I sent late that night.
——– Original Message ——–
From: – Wed Jan 16 23:33:15 2013
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:33:12 +0000
From: Dialogue Ireland firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: B Class Shareholders
Good to talk to Don. Look forward to talking to him further on how to assist cult victims who are Shareholders.
This cryptic text was sent the next morning:
17 Jan 2013 @ 9:20
Look forward to talking soon, Thanks. Don
I try to define what is meant by ‘soon’ by the following text:
17 Jan 2013 @ 9:32
Great would be available 11:30 to 1pm. Or after 6 pm. My advice is that U R dealing with a volatile group of people even though they have left Quinn. …..Can I use that email U sent to me to clarify? Best Mike
Sent from my Windows Phone
There followed no communication and it became clear that we were not getting the truth.
This text was sent on…
21 Jan 2013 @ 12:27
Just want to put you on notice that I feel you have not communicated with us in transparent way. You said U would contact me on your return to London. You used another person’s name did not tell me the name of the company and told xxxxxxx U were going to Dubai. If we have not confirmed your bone fides by Wed we will be publishing what transpired on our blog as our first duty is to cult victims. I passed on your details in good faith and hope you will show it was warranted by contacting me asap.
Sent from my Windows Phone
On 21/01/2013 12:50, email@example.com wrote:
Dear xxxxxxxx and Mike
We are away on business until next Monday, our business trip was extended.
We would prefer to talk to you person after we get back.
However I will be free later this evening and will give Mike a short telephone call then.
We have contacted you also in good faith to hopefully help the B class shareholders but please be reminded we too are professionals and have busy schedules.
We do not know if your communications are secure, our work at this stage is always highly confidential and we do not work with people we cannot trust.
In due course NDA’s will be needed and only after that will we have meaningful discussions.
At this stage Don only wants to talk to One B Class Shareholder and keep all conversations and communications to a minimum.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
We found prevarication and a lack of transparency. They wanted us to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (See copy of proposed document which we refused to sign.) before they informed us who they were.
There was a catch 22. We told them we would only publish if they did not come clean. They kept saying we were threatening them and that we ourselves were a cult!
We pointed out it is impossible to make a contract with an unknown entity. This was our legal advice. After a number of calls and emails passing backwards and forwards we came up with a formula to break the impasse. We agreed to sign a contract with Don representing an unknown entity. However, it would be null and void if the company proved to be non existent or a scam after we signed. We raised no conditions as to whether we liked the company or not. All we wanted to be sure was that if we had communicated with someone who was misrepresenting themselves we refused to be party to it. We also received intelligence that Eilleen Murphy did not in fact exist. Whoever she was she was not Eilleen. I did talk to Don who I have a mobile number for but Eilleen seemed to become unhinged when she could not break our boundary defence. As we would say in the south she was outside the Pale. It was bizarre as she claimed to be part of a well known Northern denomination which I was very familiar with having studied in Belfast from 1970 -73. We had the comment from her that we believe people, and then they asked us to sign this crazy document where we would hand over all our rights? This suggested she did not take people at their word.
Don suggested that he would get someone from the company to authenticate and verify the information we would receive. We also were very insistent that the victims of Quinn needed to receive expert advice, but our signing of the agreement was not dependent on that happening. We also stressed that our communications would not be passed onto third parties who might be former Educoists or B Shareholders. This is relevant from what transpired yesterday.
There was a period of what can only be called email ping pong clearly used to mystify and obfuscate rather than clarify the situation. We gave them an ultimatum if they did not come to an agreement and phone us and go through the contract line by line we would no longer be bound by confidentiality. We gave a deadline of mid afternoon Friday February 8 before we would publish.
On two occasions before the deadline and after it, email addresses which belonged to members of DI who were to be party to the confidential agreement were used to attempt to contact other members of the exec committee on the assumption that the Director was a lone ranger acting on his own without consulting his members. He obviously was not and we had also shared this with our legal counsel. Their were frantic attempts to stop this post from happening. This also included attempted Skype calls which showed that Don and co had induced them to blackmail us to not publish. While negotiations were going on they were passing on confidential communications to others in complete breach of our discussions with them.
These were not from Don and “Eilleen,” but by ex Educoists who would not have had these addresses. They could only have been given to them from our email correspondence with Don. They also used them in such a way that suggested they did not know who would receive them.
Here is what one of my executive committee wrote to me.
“Received this email but I have no idea who this person is, and it seems this person does not know me.”
In other words this Don has got some Educoists to sign a contract which involves non disclosure and then has used them to try to blackmail us to not post. Releasing our private correspondence and addresses to them.
We have the extensive email correspondence which we archive as we get to the bottom of this saga.
During this week Susan Morrice the current Chair of INE wrote to me and expressed the following opinion in a private email to me responding to her after I was literally a few feet from her at the TQ Seminar:
“Despite what you have been alledging, I have at all times acted in what I believe to be in the best interests of the company. I find your statement in the penultimate paragraph of your letter that you have ” no interest in the oil issue ” , to be totally incompatible with your actual stance, which I also find difficult to understand in terms of your status as a charitable organisation with no apparent commercial objectives.
At the end of the day, you have decided to take sides in what has been no less than a hostile takeover bid of an extremely successful company, to which I have been devoting the best part of my professional life.”
Here is the relevant sentence taken from my reply:
Could you give any evidence that I have become involved in a hostile takeover of INE? I think what you are claiming is defamatory is it not?
So the obvious import of this is that Morrice who has capitulated in a series of court cases and settled nearly all of them including one in the High Court in Dublin which she lost has got wind of a hostile take over of the company. Due to her highly cult controlled thinking she put me at the centre of what is obviously a fiction from what we have written here, namely we have no interest in oil at all.
She also appealed to the Supreme Court here, but her legal agents are still persisting with the myth that this case is ongoing whereas it is over. In other words how can an appeal take place concerning a deposition related to a case which has been settled. What planet are we on…
We did not take this action without serious consideration of its consequences. We will leave up to the public the decision if we were right to take the course of action we did. Publication here is the full responsibility of Don and co. If they had engaged we would have never printed a word, as oil is of no interest to us.
Filed under: Tony Quinn